Bibliographic record
Abstract
Part of the allure of Jessup's description of transnational law undoubtedly lies in its promise of capturing something beyond the most visible aspects of public and private international law – in its invocation to uncover 'unseen law', including law that is important in practice but neglected in scholarship. Transnational law, whether viewed substantively or as a methodological approach, expands law's vision field. Yet the task of making visible the actualities of law and practice comprising transnational law involves slippery methodological questions that legal scholars seem particularly skilled at sidestepping. This short chapter examines the intellectual holding pen created by Jessup for other rules and sources of law, his 'larger storehouse of rules'. It interrogates the meaning of the practice-enriched perspective that transnational law claims to deliver, arguing that those who invoke practice in fact mean many different things. Finally, the chapter considers the twin research challenges of selective vision and partial knowledge, identifying four 'black boxes' that might inspire new directions in transnational environmental law research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".